How do I backup 1.3 settings - or can I install 2.0 alongside it?
I still use Windows 2000, so I don't really expect to be able to run 2.0. Even so, I'd like to try, but without overwriting my MuseScore 1.3 installation - which is working fine.
Officially, the minimum spec for 1.3 was WIndows XP, IIRC, but it works fine. The only problem I've had is trying to open a MuseScore file by double clicking or using Send To. If I open it from within MuseScore 1.3, all is well. Even so, I'll be fairly surprised if 2.0 works in Win2k, but that doesn't stop me wanting to try. The problem is, I don't want to risk losing my settings for 1.3, because a lot of them were by trial and error - some aspects of getting the layout how I want, still baffle me.
So, how do I back up the settings for 1.3? I can't see anything in the registry under Software->MuseScore (either HKLM or HKCU), and I don't see anything like an ini file anywhere.
Alternatively, can I just install 2.0 alongside it somehow, without disturbing it or overwriting anything?
Comments
2.0 and 1.3 can coexist peacefully. Whether 2.0 works in Windows 2000 is a different issue.
In reply to 2.0 and 1.3 can coexist by Jojo-Schmitz
Thanks.
As it turns out, the MSI package can't be installed by Windows 2000. Is there another installation format, like a ZIP of all the files needed?
In reply to Thanks. As it turns out, the by AndyHornBlower
No. No supported one at least, but you may give the non-SSE2 one a try, check http://musescore.org/en/download#Unsupported-versions-of-Windows, provided you find a 7zip for this antediluvian Windows version
In reply to No. No supported one at by Jojo-Schmitz
Thanks. I came to the same conclusion, and tried that. It does appear to just need unzipping to a Program Files folder, but the application doesn't run in Win2k.
The first thing it does is complain that GetGeoInfoW can't be found in KERNEL32.dll. That appears to need WinXP or later.
In reply to Thanks. As it turns out, the by AndyHornBlower
Try the portable version: http://portableapps.com/apps/music_video/musescore_portable
I'm curious if it will work.
In reply to Try the portable version: by [DELETED] 5
Sadly, no. The installer runs, but falls at the first hurdle. It won't let me specify a folder to install it to - e.g. I choose C:\Program Files\, which it changes to C:\Program Files\MuseScorePortable\, but it tells me the folder is invalid:
"The destination folder is invalid. Please choose a valid folder [C:\Program Files\ or sub-directories]"
I also tried creating that folder, but it makes no difference. Presumably, it's relying on some feature of XP+ to validate the folder....
Ah! Changing it to D:\Program Files\MuseScorePortable\ gets me a bit further with it (I have a Program Files folder on that drive too).
The installer completed successfully, so I ticked the box to run MuseScore 2.0 portable immediately - I couldn't see it on the Programs Menu. It showed a splash screen very briefly, then immediately disappeared. Running MuseScorePortable.exe from the installation folder has the same effect.
In reply to Try the portable version: by [DELETED] 5
Does the portable version rely on SSE2? I don't have that, as far as I know. The processor on this PC is an Athlon XP 1800+. CPU ID reports it has MMX(+), 3DNow(+) and SSE, but it doesn't say SSE2.
Grasping at straws, I know. There's probably other reasons why it won't work - relying on APIs that don't exist in WIndows 2000.
In reply to Does the portable version by AndyHornBlower
Time to get yourself a new PC and OS, I'm afraid.
You might want to try one of the Linux distributions which generally have less demands when it comes to processor and other specifications. Most allow you to create a bootable CD or USB stick so you can try things out before committing to installing on your hard drive. Even then, if you need Win2000 to run a particular application you can use Linux to create a new partition, install itself there and dual-boot your PC allowing you to select Win2000 or Linux at start up. I am writing this from within xubuntu 14.04 on a PC set up to boot into xubuntu by default or Windows XP by selection. I only kept WinXP to access iTunes and to run a video editing program. MS 2.0 running well. There are many Linxu distro's but I'd go for xubuntu or lubuntu for ease of installation, large user-base etc.
In reply to You might want to try one of by underquark
Yes, that seems like the most affordable option. I'd need to buy another hard drive before I could install it properly (the one I have is groaningly full), but I'll look into the CD route... I don't think this thing can boot from an external USB device, but I could try it.
The main thing stopping me installing a new drive is moving all the stuff that's accumulated between me and the PC, over the years - I sit a couple of yards from the actual box, which is under a shelf unit, closed off by a heavy cupboard in front of it, with a 20" TV/monitor between me and it, and several flutes and clarinets on stands, between the monitor and the PC. It's going to be a full days work to move everything to get to it.
I'm not totally opposed to buying a new PC (same problem with moving stuff though), but I'm not really impressed with the improvements in hardware performance in the last ten years or so, so it doesn't seem like money well spent. The improvements seem more incremental than fundamental. Windows distributions have got flashier, and slower, requiring more memory, but not better. Software writers are just encouraged to write for newer hardware and newer OS's, and that helps those thing sell.
In reply to Yes, that seems like the most by AndyHornBlower
Software sells Hardware, it's been like this ever since
In reply to Software sells Hardware, it's by Jojo-Schmitz
Yep. What bugs me is that almost all new software could almost certainly have been written to run on much older hardware than it now requires, or on an older OS version. In most cases, not even noticeably slower than on a new PC. Most software spends most of its time waiting for user input.
I notice Lubuntu requires an AMD K8 processor, as the minimum spec for AMD (the Athlon XP is K7). The reason given is that Flash content won't work properly on a K7. That's true in Windows too, but it's not the fault of the hardware. It used to work fine, but now it's pretty poor. They just made Flash use more and more CPU power to do the same thing. The further back you go in versions of Flash, the faster it gets.
In reply to Yep. What bugs me is that by AndyHornBlower
Yup, Flash has always been a resource and memory hog.
In the early days of Windows 98SE I refused to have it on my computer because it wouldn't run at an acceptable speed.
Somehow despite it inefficiency it manage to establish itself as the bees knees for web applications.
Java was always much better, but never got the break it deserved.
But I digress :)